Why Lightroom?

I have PS CS4 & Bridge. I've read the dope sheets on lightroom, but I'd like to hear from my fellow Nikon owners what you think of lightroom and why.

In the end I really do all of my work in PS, and use bridge mostly as a "viewer."

I do want something that catalogs completely - but there needs to be more for the price.
What say you LR owners/users?

Des

about 2 mins per pic (90% of the time) in LR and LR2. Of course, I'm not a pro, but I like having more time to take pictures and less time spent in front of the computer.

--
What you know imprisons you - Anonymous sidewalk
scrawl

LR just makes working with images so much easier and fluent. You can quickly and easily switch between viewing, cataloguing, processing, exporting and printing. It suits my way of working with images, as I can just go back and forth between these different tasks instantly, and keeping with the same interface and controls.

You miss out on the enormous complexity of PS, but that's mostly a good thing, as you keep just the important adjustments tools needed for photographers. 95% of the time, my images are done after LR. The remaining 5% I might take into PS for further work.

Also, with the simpler controls, I actually finish working with an image, instead of trying out lots of different detail stuff in PS. So LR makes me actually finish images, and it makes it quicker and more fun to do so. LR makes me get done with post work, and leave to free to take more images

Try it out. I'll highly recommend it!

Thomas.

I've don’t see the benefit of LR, except for asset management which has a lot of competition from a number of other software vendors. The print output of LR is not well colour managed as it lacks the ability to preview with an output profile, and its main processing features are duplicated in PS (especially CS4) which is, after all, Adobe's pro software and is priced accordingly. Sure, if you can’t afford Photoshop then LR is an option, but so is Bibble.

I can do more (automate tasks, open images as smart objects, etc..) with PS+ACR than I can with LR so I really don't need what it has to offer. It commits the user to using LR to catalogue all their images and will then oblige them to $update the software to retain support as new cameras are released. Yes, DNG exists as a workaround to help with this compatibility. But for a pro it just adds another time consuming step that isn't practical when working to a deadline and every minute counts.

I've don’t understand the need for nor the hype surrounding LR. Especially with CS4 that pretty well duplicates all LP’s features, except for the asset management part for which I would prefer to use a non-Adobe product to avoid the need for costly upgrades.

Russell

Because when you get home from shooting a wedding, and you have 1000 to 1500 raw images to sort through and then process, Lightroom will get you through it with a minumum of pain. :^)

I did my first wedding with Capture NX. :^( That'll never happen again.

Lightroom is a joy!

One of the reasons I'm looking at it is because I just shot some wedding images. Not professionally (thank goodness) and I was trying to process only about 300 images in NX. I thought it so awful (performance and nothing really special to offer) that I figured there has to be a better way - I have PS and Bridge - and that's not bad. I'm running a training session on lynda.com called Photoshop for Professionals (quite good really) and there's a lot about LR in the beginning - so I decided to check it out and see what others on this forum think.

Des

to say the least. The circle thing is really not well implemented.

... if you're already a lynda.com subscriber, check out "Photoshop Lightroom 2 Essential Training" by Chris Orwig.

Bill

Just my opinion...I shoot mostly portraits so I don't have thousands of images to process, maybe 100-400 at a time. But, I have shot weddings with as many as 2,000 images to process.

For weddings, with the majority of prints 8x10 or smaller, use Lightroom 2. It is definately faster. The cataloging is far superior to anything else I have seen. If you have signature portraits to process, then use Capture NX 2. The IQ difference is noticeable, in my opinion. (Especially at high ISO's). I use NIK Color Efex Pro 3 as a plug-in to CNX2. What a combination!

CNX2 does require a fast processor with lots of memory. I will be upgrading to a Quad Core Intel based machine with 6 gigs of RAM in the near future. I have read that CNX2 is very fast with this set up. The cataloging is still best handled with Lightroom 2.

Rick
http://www.ricklewisphotography.com/

I don't see that anyone has mentioned the ability to store multiple states of an image as you do the work without incurring the overhead of saving all the extra files. The "virtual copy' concept seems very useful!

The main advantage (to me) of Lightroom is that you can switch instantly between sorting, browsing and editing. The local editing tools are not as flexible (nor as easy to use) as PS, but they are non-destructive, and they are right there. For quick touch-up, getting rid of minor blemishes, graduated filters, crop, straighten etc they're fine. Tone curve is not as flexible as PS, but it's OK for most stuff.

I switch into Photoshop for the few that need more (for me that's 1-5% max). And that's easy too: right click, select "Edit in... Photoshop", and the file's in Photoshop (and comes back into the Lightroom catalogue stacked with the original).

You are not "stuck" with the Lightroom catalogue: if you set the option "write changes into XMP" then all Lightroom edits are saved in the sidecar file - exactly where Photoshop puts them. So edits in Lightroom are "seen" by ACR and vice versa (with the caveat that sometimes you have to tell Lightroom to update the XMP - it doesn't always do it instantly).

When I started using Lightroom (1.4) I found it slow and buggy, and I really couldn't see what it offered I hadn't got with Bridge and Photoshop CS3. And raw quality was better in Capture NX. Now I've got used to it (and Adobe have improved it) the answer is speed. I can go through 300 images, identify 80 worth using, crop and adjust, create a website, print, export... all in less than an hour. It would have taken twice as long in Bridge/Photoshop, and ten times as long in View NX / Capture NX. And with the new Adobe camera profiles, I think raw handling quality is as good as Capture NX.

workflow speed!! Nothing beats it for overall workflow!!

As for quality, well, you better have REALLY GOOD exposures on your originals, otherwise, the noise comes on strong!!!!

Capture NX is far better than most other software at extracting details from your NEFs I say almost because Raw Magick has better detail extraction atthe cost of speed.. too bad it has not seen a revision in ageas...

Where is Iliah???? ;-)
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://fcasmembers.com/

Actually the beauty of the cluncky clone thing is that it can be applied to every shot. So if there was something on my sensor I could apply the clone to every shot is a series. Extremely helpful for me. I had no issues using it. Not photoshop but why would you expect it to be.
--
Enjoy the Day

Paul Guba New Jersey Photographer
http://www.gubavision.com

It is hugely faster then anything else when dealing with large amounts of photos that need to be edited and processed. I can go through 300 or so images from a shoot make adjustments, crop, sync corrections, compare images, then hit export and be done in about a fifth of the time of any other editor. I have the regular complement of software Nikon NX, Capture1, Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Lightroom works best for me. Major retouching of course goes to photoshop.
--
Enjoy the Day

Paul Guba New Jersey Photographer
http://www.gubavision.com

Dan Desjardins said:

I have PS CS4 & Bridge. I've read the dope sheets on lightroom, but
I'd like to hear from my fellow Nikon owners what you think of
lightroom and why.
In the end I really do all of my work in PS, and use bridge mostly as
a "viewer."
I do want something that catalogs completely - but there needs to be
more for the price.
What say you LR owners/users?

Click to expand...

Having used both, here's my thoughts on LR (Lightroom) both on its own merits and in comparison to CNX (Capture NX)...

Starting with 2.0, LR supports camera profiling using the Adobe Profile Editor and a Macbeth ColorChecker chart. This has increased the color accuracy of my commercial product and architecture work tremendously. Just that one feature is pretty much worth the price of LR (it's comparable to a color correction plugin like PictoColor in-camera).

LR doesn't crash while I'm using it, or during batch operations. I can work all day with minimum frustration, or tell LR to convert 800 raws to proof book sized JPEGS, and know that 3 hours later I will have a CD ready to burn. CNX, well, that's another story...

Sharpening works better in LR than in CNX. Images adjusted for an equal amount of sharpness in CNX and LR look better in LR (less "halos" and "textured" noise). If I had to guess, I'd say CNX uses old fashioned unsharp masks, while LR uses a deconvolution algorithm similar to CS3 "smart sharpen". This is important for the very first sharpening of the classic "three sharpening" workflow (import, creative, and printing).

Copying settings from one image to another in a group of similar images is considerably easier in LR than CNX.

LR does surprisingly good B&W conversions.

As a viewer, Lightroom keeps a permanent cache of thumbnails and good size preview images (mine is set for 1024 pixel) so you can see your catalogs faster than Bridge.

The whole "virtual copy" concept is incredibly useful. You can make a couple of different B&W conversions, etc. without using up appreciable extra space, and they all "travel" together.

LR stores all changes in a central database. It doesn't alter each NEF file like CNX does (which has implications ranging from forensics to backing up changed NEF files). The database is small enough to back up multiple times a day, if you desire.

One program for all your raws. I am considering a Canon 40D for a microscope and telescope camera (it's about the best there is for those tasks). I had a Pentax "second system" for a few months (wonderful compact camera, great "pancake" lenses and a wonderful 77mm "portrait" lens to replace 105mm portrait on full frame). I occasionally borrow cameras from acquaintances, including an MF Blad, a Leica M8, a Canon 1Ds III, and a couple of different Fujis.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

If you have CS4 / Bridge, there is NO advantage (well, possibly some slightly better asset management) to Lightroom. CS4 / Bridge is extremely fast (compared to Bridge CS3) and, believe it or not, almost as fast as PhotoMechanic when working with RAW images for initial image viewing and selection.

One thing I noticed is that Lightroom generates very large Cache files if you shoot raw and select the "standard" cache options. For example, one directory I have with 1450 raw images requires a cache size of 5 GB whereas the same cache structure on Bridge is 600 MB - this is almost 1/10 the cache space. In this case, I have also saved a backup cache file from Bridge in the image directory which occupies 1.06 GB. Even with this extra file, the Bridge system requires significantly less space when processing raw files. Since I don't shoot JPG, I cannot say if there is any difference in cache efficiency when shooting JPG.

If you have a "large" shoot (such as a wedding, dance production, sporting event) in which you must process 1500+ images, Bridge is excellent. It is at least as easy as lightroom to select, tag, delete and otherwise deal with the initial cull of the images. Photo Mechanic is slightly better than Bridge for raw speed and initial cull of the images - but NOT significantly. This is understandable since the entire reason for PhotoMechanic is to do EXACTLY this job very well.

For initial editing - crop, color balance, spot, local adjustments, using Adobe Camera Raw does essentially everything Light room does and at least equally fast. Of course, the ACR editing is non-destructive - just like Lightroom. When needed for printing and exacting image processing, you can easily launch CS4. It is no easier from Lightroom than from Bridge.

Generation of client image disks, web pages, etc are done easily (like Lightroom) out of Bridge. Bridge also has an FTP option to allow you to FTP images to a client - I have not found this feature in Lightroom (but it may be hidden somewhere).

On the whole, if you have CS4 / Bridge, Lightroom is unnecessary - although some people who like to categorize, play with, group and other things associated with asset management prefer the extra features in Lightroom Of course, Bridge has more than adequate catalogue options for the majority of commercial users.

The added advantage of using only one piece of software is that you need only figure out one way of doing things - mixing Bridge and Lightroom can become confusing from an operational point of view.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

tony field said:

If you have CS4 / Bridge, there is NO advantage (well, possibly some
slightly better asset management) to Lightroom. CS4 / Bridge is
extremely fast (compared to Bridge CS3) and, believe it or not,
almost as fast as PhotoMechanic when working with RAW images for
initial image viewing and selection.

One thing I noticed is that Lightroom generates very large Cache
files if you shoot raw and select the "standard" cache options. For
example, one directory I have with 1450 raw images requires a cache
size of 5 GB whereas the same cache structure on Bridge is 600 MB -
this is almost 1/10 the cache space.

Click to expand...

I think that LR cache size may not be typical. You're at 3.4 megs/image, which is about ten times the average. I'm guessing your cache is "fresh" and contains a bunch of 1:1 previews, in addition to the "standard" 1440 pixel previews.

Lightroom "settles down" to a much lower value after you use it for a while, about 400k per image. The 1440 pixel previews stay in cache forever, but the 1:1 are automatically culled after a time period you set (I currently have mine at the default 30 days), so you only have 1:1 previews for the most recently used images. I got a few other longtime LR users to check their cache sized for me, and they all pretty much agree with mine...

My catalog is 41,586 images (I did a big duplicate cull and got it down from about 60,000 a month or two ago) 15,387,319,195 bytes for the preview directory tree, 370k per image.

tony field said:

In this case, I have also saved
a backup cache file from Bridge in the image directory which occupies
1.06 GB.

Click to expand...

The bridge numbers you cite are actually about twice what your LR catalog will settle down to after several months of use.

tony field said:

Even with this extra file, the Bridge system requires
significantly less space when processing raw files. Since I don't
shoot JPG, I cannot say if there is any difference in cache
efficiency when shooting JPG.

If you have a "large" shoot (such as a wedding, dance production,
sporting event) in which you must process 1500+ images, Bridge is
excellent. It is at least as easy as lightroom to select, tag,
delete and otherwise deal with the initial cull of the images.

Click to expand...

I did not find it so...

tony field said:

Photo
Mechanic is slightly better than Bridge for raw speed and initial
cull of the images - but NOT significantly. This is understandable
since the entire reason for PhotoMechanic is to do EXACTLY this job
very well.

For initial editing - crop, color balance, spot, local adjustments,
using Adobe Camera Raw does essentially everything Light room does

Click to expand...

Except color. ACR uses the simpler 8 parameter version of Adobe camera profiles, instead of the 36 parameter version.

tony field said:

and at least equally fast. Of course, the ACR editing is
non-destructive - just like Lightroom. When needed for printing and
exacting image processing, you can easily launch CS4. It is no
easier from Lightroom than from Bridge.

Click to expand...

Printing from LR is easier than from CS. That aside, I typically print from Qimage.

tony field said:

Generation of client image disks, web pages, etc are done easily
(like Lightroom) out of Bridge. Bridge also has an FTP option to
allow you to FTP images to a client - I have not found this feature
in Lightroom (but it may be hidden somewhere).

Click to expand...

No. It requires a plugin. But there are several free ones...

tony field said:

On the whole, if you have CS4 / Bridge, Lightroom is unnecessary -
although some people who like to categorize, play with, group and
other things associated with asset management prefer the extra
features in Lightroom Of course, Bridge has more than adequate
catalogue options for the majority of commercial users.

The added advantage of using only one piece of software is that you
need only figure out one way of doing things - mixing Bridge and
Lightroom can become confusing from an operational point of view.

Click to expand...

This is quite true. Lightroom uses a really ugly mix of Adobe terminology and terminology left over from the old RawShooter Pro software.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

tony field said:

One thing I noticed is that Lightroom generates very large Cache
files if you shoot raw and select the "standard" cache options. ...

Click to expand...

I think that LR cache size may not be typical. You're at 3.4
megs/image, which is about ten times the average. I'm guessing your
cache is "fresh" and contains a bunch of 1:1 previews, in addition to
the "standard" 1440 pixel previews.

Click to expand...

I chose the "standard" cache option which effectively copies the raw file content to the cache file. Maybe other options can reduce this.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

If you have a "large" shoot (such as a wedding, dance production,
sporting event) in which you must process 1500+ images, Bridge is
excellent. It is at least as easy as lightroom to select, tag,
delete and otherwise deal with the initial cull of the images.

Click to expand...

I did not find it so...

Click to expand...

Possibly you speed problem is associated with familiarity of the Bridge CS4 and Lightroom systems. I can easily work as fast for initial image cull in Bridge as in Lightroom. Do not confuse the speed and convenience of Bridge CS4 with that of Bridge CS3 - the new version is absolutely excellent.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Except color. ACR uses the simpler 8 parameter version of Adobe
camera profiles, instead of the 36 parameter version.

Click to expand...

For the generation of customer image disks or ftp of files to the client or the generation of web pages, this provides only a small gain. If you REALLY need to do a high quality image edit, it can be selectively done in CS4.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Printing from LR is easier than from CS. That aside, I typically
print from Qimage.

Click to expand...

For my work flow, CS4 (or CS3) provides equally easy printing. I do not see any advantage in the printing of images from Lightroom for a few prints. I have not tried batch printing images from Bridge CS4 so I cannot

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

The added advantage of using only one piece of software is that you
need only figure out one way of doing things - mixing Bridge and
Lightroom can become confusing from an operational point of view.

Click to expand...

This is quite true. Lightroom uses a really ugly mix of Adobe
terminology and terminology left over from the old RawShooter Pro
software.

Click to expand...

Yes - you would have thought that the Adobe folks would have normalized the terminology. None the less, they have taken many Lightroom features and added them to Bridge CS4. This is, IMO, a good thing.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Very impressed at the speed of lightroom. It has become my major program for processing wedding photos.

Faster than anything out there.

Cheers

Ron

I like the LR2/PSCS4 IQ & workflow. Don't know how I did without it.

Cheers,
JB